HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Is Weekes with the team on Opening night

View Poll Results: Is Weekes a Ranger on opening night?
YES 67 67.00%
No 33 33.00%
Voters: 100. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-06-2006, 10:35 AM
  #26
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,928
vCash: 500
Yep.

A little twitchy in net, but good to have.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2006, 10:55 AM
  #27
HAPPY HOUR
Registered User
 
HAPPY HOUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
What are we going to do, at this point, with an extra 2 million in cap room?
We don't have to do anything "at this point". But like I said I would rather have Valiquette and 2 mill in cap room over Weekes as a back-up goalie.

HAPPY HOUR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2006, 10:58 AM
  #28
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by happy hour View Post
We don't have to do anything "at this point". But like I said I would rather have Valiquette and 2 mill in cap room over Weekes as a back-up goalie.
All I meant was that having another 2 million in cap room doesn't equate to much of a benefit at this point. To me, it's a moot point.

Besides, you haven't said why you would rather have Steve V as our backup. I'm curious to know.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2006, 11:34 AM
  #29
HAPPY HOUR
Registered User
 
HAPPY HOUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
All I meant was that having another 2 million in cap room doesn't equate to much of a benefit at this point. To me, it's a moot point.

Besides, you haven't said why you would rather have Steve V as our backup. I'm curious to know.
I believe that IF (hypothetically) of course Weekes and Valiquette would play around 25 games or so as a back-up to Henrik that the records (save%) would be similar. I think Steve V is capable of a 900 sv % and is very sound positionally. I liked what I saw of Valiquette when he was with the Isles farm team and I thought he was outstanding the 5 or 6 times I saw him live in Hartford. Henrik was so much better than Weekes that at this point that I believe the rangers would be fine with Steve V as a back-up. And IF Valiquette struggles, than you bring up Montoya mid season and send Valiquette to Hartford. I also ask myself if Weekes was on another team, and I had to face him in a seven game series,would I be worried?? Defnot. Off the top of my head I can't think of a veteran goalie that i would rather face than Kevin Weekes. Well maybe Jaime Mclennan..


Last edited by HAPPY HOUR: 07-06-2006 at 11:36 AM. Reason: spelling
HAPPY HOUR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2006, 11:37 AM
  #30
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,808
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by happy hour View Post
I also ask myself if Weekes was on another team, and I had to face him in a seven game series,would I be worried?? Defnot. Off the top of my head I can't think of a veteran goalie that i would rather face than Kevin Weekes. Well maybe Jaime Mcclennan..
Off the top of my head:

Brent Johnson
Dan Cloutier
Garth Snow
Mike Dunham

That said, you don't need worry about Weekes being able to play a seven game series. That's not what you would ask of him.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2006, 11:40 AM
  #31
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,454
vCash: 500
Fair enough. What I will say in response is simply that Valiquette is impressive at the AHL level, but a 29-yr old who's played 9 games in the NHL doesn't impress me in the least as an NHL goalie. Granted, you have Tim Thomas as an example, but guys like him are aberrations.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2006, 11:45 AM
  #32
HAPPY HOUR
Registered User
 
HAPPY HOUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Off the top of my head:

Brent Johnson
Dan Cloutier
Garth Snow
Mike Dunham

That said, you don't need worry about Weekes being able to play a seven game series. That's not what you would ask of him.
I would take Clouts over Weekes any day. I agree with Snow and Johnson. I belive that Dunham at his best as a Ranger played better than Weekes did at his best as a Ranger. Mike D was also on a MUCH worse team.

HAPPY HOUR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2006, 11:52 AM
  #33
HAPPY HOUR
Registered User
 
HAPPY HOUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Fair enough. What I will say in response is simply that Valiquette is impressive at the AHL level, but a 29-yr old who's played 9 games in the NHL doesn't impress me in the least as an NHL goalie. Granted, you have Tim Thomas as an example, but guys like him are aberrations.
My only defense to that is that he has won three out of four descisions, and he is 28 not 29. What can I say. I have always thought that big V was a capable back-up goalie in the NHL.

HAPPY HOUR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2006, 11:55 AM
  #34
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
This is a team that has to recall it's top goalie prospect just to use in practice last year, I'd prefer to keep the depth and a move at this point or before the season would be foolish.

Valiquette was likely not hired to be the backup but to serve as a veteran goalie whose long term development is not the concern of the organization.

When you recall a Montoya or a Holt you are taking games away from them where they could start, you don't want to do that with 21 year old goalies.

when you recall Vali you don't care if he sits for5 days, you don't care if you're only recalling him for practice. At 29, it doesn't much matter anymore.

Both Montoya and Lundqvist have played a combined 100 games and both have had injuries that affected them (Montoya especially). This is an insurance move, not a prelude to a restructuring.

Between injuries at the AHL and NHL, Valiquette will serve his purpose. He also allows the Rangers the option of moving a guy like Weekes at the end of the year anyway.

This is a move that you need for the regular season and possibly serves a trade purpose in about 9 months, not in 9 weeks.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2006, 12:02 PM
  #35
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,304
vCash: 500
In Dunham's first season...

he played as well as Lundqvist and almost carried that putrid team to the playoffs. He wasn't a workhorse but was treated like one and thus was injured and ineffective post that season.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2006, 12:10 PM
  #36
Linnarhult
Registered User
 
Linnarhult's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Sweden
Posts: 110
vCash: 500
I relly don't care as long as Lundqvist is number 1. But if he's satisfied being backup to Lundqvist the next couple of years, why not keep him?

Linnarhult is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2006, 12:13 PM
  #37
HAPPY HOUR
Registered User
 
HAPPY HOUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,253
vCash: 500
Would be funny if Montoya stands on his head in preseason and makes Weekes and Valiquette non-factors. A good problem to have because you can slide V back to Hartford and "hopefully" find a suitor for Weekes. A mid-season call up of Montoya may not impede his development. Tom Renney has shown that he will ride the hot goalie, and if Al gets his shot and shines then who knows. I'm really happy with the trio of Henrik,Valiquette and Montoya at this point.I didn't forget anyone did I?? I see that La Barbera may be available ( "LA Times"). Anyone rather have Jason L than Weekes or Valiquette???

HAPPY HOUR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2006, 01:05 PM
  #38
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
he played as well as Lundqvist and almost carried that putrid team to the playoffs. He wasn't a workhorse but was treated like one and thus was injured and ineffective post that season.
I couldn't disagree more. He was awful from start to finish. He should never ever be mentioned in the same breath as Lundqvist. I really hope that was an exaggeration to make a point. Mike Dunham only showed up for Islander games.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2006, 01:12 PM
  #39
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugerya View Post
I couldn't disagree more. He was awful from start to finish. He should never ever be mentioned in the same breath as Lundqvist. I really hope that was an exaggeration to make a point. Mike Dunham only showed up for Islander games.
I agree with Fletch, it's very easy to forget just how amazingly good Dunham was during that stretch.

The guy tied the Rangers shutout record in only 43 games, he had a 2.29 gaa and a .924 sv.pct and that was a pretty pitiful defensive team to boot. That of course says nothing of their offense.

The two highest scorers were only there for their scoring with other teams. Outside of them, Nedved was as close as the team came to a scorer that season.

It was all down hill for Dunham from there, but those 43 games were amazing. RIGHT up there with Lundqvist's first season.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2006, 05:31 AM
  #40
WheresBarnaby
Registered User
 
WheresBarnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I agree with Fletch, it's very easy to forget just how amazingly good Dunham was during that stretch.

The guy tied the Rangers shutout record in only 43 games, he had a 2.29 gaa and a .924 sv.pct and that was a pretty pitiful defensive team to boot. That of course says nothing of their offense.

The two highest scorers were only there for their scoring with other teams. Outside of them, Nedved was as close as the team came to a scorer that season.

It was all down hill for Dunham from there, but those 43 games were amazing. RIGHT up there with Lundqvist's first season.
Right. The thing you gotta remember there is that the whole team sucked. How good can a goalie be when the guy's in front are playing like garbage. (See the end of this season for a reminder.)

WheresBarnaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2006, 09:10 AM
  #41
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,304
vCash: 500
I think Dunham's numbers...

in his first season with the Rangers speak well for themself. Maybe you don't remember how bad that team was and how bad the defense was. It was amazing he put up those numbers - numbers the immortal Mike Richter couldn't come close to under similar conditions. I can't remember how many times Dunham was hung to dry while facing around 30 shots per night.

And no - there was no exaggeration intended. I hope you at least recognize that the defense that played in front of Lundqvist was far better than the one that played with Dunham in net. That, I hope, we can agree on.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.